tv [untitled] October 21, 2014 3:00am-3:31am PDT
amended the development plan you amended the redevelopment plan which was the controlling document at the time. the golden gate redevelopment plan expired five 5 years ago. when a redevelopment plan expires much like the western addition or embarcadero, this is the document what controls the land use on that site. that it's reverted back to the underlining zoning when it expires. >> so your per expects -- perspective it was 40 feet. >> it wasn't an elimination. redevelopment plans have an expiration date for 30 or 40 years. this plan expired in 2009. >> okay. that's a really interesting point. so in other words we should be careful and look at all redevelopment plans to ensure that we are not having any
inadvertent zoning. >> there are a number of plans that have expired recently because the plans were put in place in the 70s. the western addition, yerba buena, embarcadero, there are several that have expired. >> it might be helpful. in fact i would like to ask if you can give our office a summary of those plans and what accidental up zoning we might see with the expiration of those plans. so given what has happened is it your department's perspective that the height limit is 275 or should it be 84 or 40? >> i think, it seems to me that golden
gate commons with the exception of the site along embarcadero, it certainly would not be unusual for the board to change the reflection of what's there. i presume it's around 45 feet. >> from your perspective the department would be okay with that if that would happen? >> absolutely. >> okay. you are saying because the redevelopment plan expired years ago and because we didn't know that here at the board of supervisors, we wouldn't have known to protect whats the height limit at that time. it popped up and that is what gave your department the justification for the recommendations that you made three 3 years ago that we up zone this site from 84 feet by 60 percent. too
tower limit that exceeded the height limit was adjacent to the building. that was adjacent to the building was less than 45 feet in height. we referred to the existing zoning limit was 275, but the actual project proposed conformed with the overall massing of that district. the taller building was adjacent to the 275 -foot tower and the lower buildings. >> i understand from one direction it was 275. what i'm trying to point out and what was pointed out by these documents is the height would have been accurate it would have been more like 40 feet, so it would have been a different argument coming from a different direction. >> yeah. all i'm saying that adjacent to the 45 -foot building, the proposed development was less than 45
feet. >> okay. i appreciate your perspective on this, we will keep working through this. with that, what i would like to do madam chair if we can go to public comment. i would first like to recognize if it's okay unless there are other comments that city staffers would like to make to recognize sue hester to speak as to the documents she has found. if there are other members who would like to speak, please lineup to the side.
>> sue hester. i give thanks to the clerical people at the planning department for finding these files which were hidden and no one had looked. when i opened the files, there were bugs in them and dust and all kinds of dirt. the planning department did really important work back in the 70s around golden gate way. they did two eir's, the first one was dated november 4, 1972. it was less than two 2 months after friends of mammoth which the ceqa decision to private decisions. really soon after that, they did the first ear of substance. ee 10. this is a page from that eir, they approved the urban design
plan. you look at the site from the north west and in looking at the site and this is page from the eir, they said there is a proposal for golden gate commons that we have here and this is the current height 275, these are the heights of the current golden gate way that is stir there. -- that is still there. they said it violates the master plan. it needs to be rezoned. so out of that eir which was in 1972 certified in 1973, they took the big step saying you have to rezone that entire lot. you will look at the back of this and you will see a tennis court right there. there is the tennis court. the tennis courts are a fact of life.
when the building came back to be built in 1977. they did another eir and that eir said a reduction -- >> actually if i can ask you to elaborate on that. this involves a long document. can you explain to the committee what the implication is of the discovery of these documents. it seem to show the board of supervisors and planning commission in 1977 said this site should have been at best at 84 feet even though we were told it was 275. >> there were two implications because there were two big generic actions. the planning department at the end of the process didn't do the next step with the planning code maps. that is something that is still in
effect. it erroneously shows this is 275, but more importantly they said how you analyze projects is you analyze them from the northwest coming down to the water front. you don't analyze them from the financial district. that is really important because the planning department when it looked at the heights and washed it and looking from the financial district, it was everything done contemporaneously from the height limit. the second thing that happened was golden gate way 3 was golden gate way commons. it's south north of jackson street. and when they were looking at golden gate commons, they incorporated the land from the tennis and swim club as part of the project. i have the plans that i don't
know if anyone has really looked at since the planning department found the files for me a couple months ago. the plans for a conditional use and pud. they all have exhibit a plans, every single one of them and that is a definition of what you do. and so you have to look at the plans as well as the resolution to find out what they did. and the plans that are here and i have copies for the committee that i can pass out include the site of the tennis and swim club as part of the project. the recitals of full saying that we are not providing the typical amount of open space on the site because they were using the open space that is provided to the east to embarcadero and golden gate way. the plans that were approved are very
confusing. they are really long. the plans that were approved as a condition of the golden gate way commons including the swim club. this part of jackson street is the part that includes this part of golden gate commons and this part of golden gate way commons. the part of north jackson street is a different part of the development, but south of jackson, the condos had a condition that they had the open space provided in the tennis and swim club. it's important because it was a pud, it's a different pud from the pud from the area from the golden gate plan. the golden gate plan itself was a pud. but here we have a pud that we think of normally as a pud which is condos. it was development of
specific land, specific for condominium oh complexes. epa of them -- each of them had a specific approval that included these lands from the golden gate tennis and swim club. they are part of the chain of title for those condos. people that are attorneys know you have to go back and find out what is the underlying approval of the building, and the underlying approval of the condos, each of the condos at golden gate way incorporates this map. >> if i can ask one question, mr. ram referred to this only as half a tennis court, you are suggest issing is most of the club. >> no. this is from the planning
approval. it says these are the plans exhibit a and they are incorporating that plan and it has an open space requirement met in the planning code. they went back in the planning code and said you have to adopt the plans for the golden gate way. the second thing that happened, this is from the redevelopment plan. this is from you go on to the redevelopment site right now. the redevelopment site right now posted this decision. says there is open space in the square and there is a color code on the map
they said these are the redevelopment plans after the rezoning. it incorporated two huge open spaces in the square and the recreation facilities that had been previously conditioned and on the approval in 1977. >> ms. hester, i want to thank you for your public testimony. to summarize for colleagues, i know this is complicated and historical documents. what ms. hester has documents that suggest that this agency decided that given the incredible density that there was a commitment around spaces that was not brought to our attention when we considered this two 2 years ago and understand what the legality is if it were not disclosed.
>> the city approved the subdivision of the golden gate. the subdivision did the approval. the city did the two things, they approved the pud and the subdivisions which included both of them, the swim club recreation facility. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. let's hear from the next speaker. >> i did do we hear from the next speaker. >> good morning.
this lady, similar, the half way, it's destiny. human destiny. the inside area. that's all too laughable. we are talking about destiny. the human way of destiny of human nature. we all have human souls. so human nature kindness. however we have two composition. the situation that leaves one's pathway. >> next speaker.
sf gov. tv. san francisco television, can you pull the projection? thank you. >> colleagues, i appreciate your intelligence while we wait. >> my name is brad spau. i'm speaking as an individual. i want to address two issues, primarily this accidental zoning. what happened was the height was dropped and when the redevelopment agency went out of business it went back to some underlying zoning. ed hat feld who was part of the redevelopment agency he said one of his greatest regrets was not insisting that planning change the map to reflect the 84 feet. the reason that's
important is because this is the site, those 45-foot buildings are the vast majority of the this site and when the heights were raised, the justification was not just that building to the left where we have a marry -- narrow of the 275 -foot building but the zoning around this block area. the fact that it is that way is what got us to this which is they always showed it looking towards the high rises. but time and time again it's looking from the the direction down in the water front. i just want to make one other point as to why it's silly to leave these. >> sf gov. tv. san francisco television on the overhead projector. thank you. >> what he said a few minutes ago, this is never going to be above the height now because it's 155
condos. for someone to develop this they have to offer each of the 155 owner money about $2.5 million each. you have to pay about $375 million today. if you wait, it's almost a half billion dollars. it's a fantasy. i this i that mr. ram would agree. so what we need to do is to drop the heights to what they are what you suggested supervisors when you were talking. >> i will charles. i just have two quick points to make. one doesn't rely on plat maps or anything any legal easy have
done. it has to do with history should be en light enlightening. there is other documents. how about the general history of the area. my understanding is that over six mayoral terms it's what too do with the 55 acres. i read about this and it was going to be the hotel and embarcadero and made sense to have residential and residential and condos. since you are going to have all of this imagination as some of the opponents at the time, why not have a recreation area. it's obvious that this golden gate way area was the result of that and there were restrictions when we moved in that put a restriction on the recreation. the second point i would like to make is that the eir that was
approved was erroneously approved because recreation area itself in responding to the eir recreation in itself would not be available to the p be in the future. there's no restriction on the land to put in. you can see the planning department which permitted a simple letter to be filed by the developer and responded to the public comment, it allowed for a letter and called that a protection to the public. i think even our newest attorney here would know that a letter with planning.
>> my name is lee rad ner, friends of golden gate way. i have seen there is a divergence of opinion in terms of planning and what ms. hester presented to you. i know that supervisor chiu said we can't relive past deals. but i do want to bring up the election quickly because the voters voted down any planned proposed development not only height limits. from there, that's when ms. hester began to work on the history of this and come up with a very comprehensive reason for why we have the pud and should be still in effect. i also noted that the port
today mentioned that there is no plan in front of them. i have heard it a number of meetings that there will be a plan by the end of this year, but now we hear there is still no plan. we've been kicking this can down the road for i don't know how long and i would like to see the supervisors take a good hard look at exactly what is going on with the development of the proposed development. we have offered the asia neighborhood design plan and with lot 351 we had an excellent idea presented and we hope they will take that up seriously before the next 2 years including an act of recreation bicycle center low
rise to benefit the community and the park itself. thank you. >> thank you, mr. renner. next speaker? >> good morning, my name is nan mcguire, i'm not a lawyer and i don't understand all the ins and outs what has been said but i have been around this project for 12 years. most people don't realize it before lee took over, dave burnett who is sitting in this audience and i cochaired this meeting. there is opposition for people living in the city whoever about this development. this is not the first time this development went up. i think prior to the election in november, that mr. rad ner
referred to. it was interesting because all who voted for the development kept very very quiet. they didn't want to say anything in case maybe the people, the proponents would win. i also feel and i haven't looked at the records. if people looked at the records, the contribution records of those supervises who supported the thing i suspect many of them would have been donated by mr. mall grove. >> my colleagues sitting on this committee were not part of the board of supervisors at that time. we can continue. >> good afternoon, mr. chiu, the committee. my name is frederick dice. i'm here representing the open space for the water front. we collectively represent a number of property owners and residents
in the neighborod for over 40 years have enjoyed the golden gate tennis club. i'm sure you have heard this before, if you look at how the project was conceived of and how they approved the project included the recreation component as a component of the neighborhood. everyone associated with that including our previous mayor, diane feinstein, every politician in town has said many times the fact that thises not zoned like the park was which is open space and left to the zoning that was put there by the cal trans freeway in 1951 was a shame. they just did not change it because nobody thought with the freeway there that anybody would want to do anything with that land except leave it recreation. now we've had all of these challenges over time because the community has not found out the truth because of how this was zoned and with the
fed monies of hud and the uses for this property in person petuity. this property is very important and you will find the citizens who recommended this will come out in support of it. thank you for your support and i look forward to seeing you tuesday at the ballpark. go giants. >> thank you, are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on public comment? sir, you have already spoken. madam chair, i public comment is closed. first question could be to the board of planning. can someone tell us what the status of the lawsuits are.
>> john from the port. there are three lawsuits to this project. one has been an appealed. the state land action is part of the land swap of this project thalg the ceqa suit and that's currently on appeal and there is two other lawsuits that are pending elsewhere regarding ceqa for this ceqa documentation that was used when the board of supervisors acted and there are currently i believe three are being written on both sides to be heard by a judge in the fall. so that's the current status. >> okay. thank you. question for mr. ram, obviously this
involved records. it's a little disturbing for me to understand that these documents have just come up. can you tell us about the records and to make sure all the documents are relevant? >> i can tell you these documents have been there since the 70s. they have been back in storage for a number of years, but those documents do still exist and they are access is i believe to accessible to the public. >> can you make sure those documents are available to us. >> sure. there is the process for the staff to look back at historical documents. >> but this didn't happen. >> we believe the planning commission's action was still valid according to this issue. >> okay. a couple of closing comments. i want to thank colleagues
for your patience on this item and as well as city staffers and i want to thank the neighborhoods and research that ms. hester did and others to bring this to our attention. clearly there are issues that we are going to delve into and not just around the impact of these historical documents around the future of this site but there is codeine interest -- keen interest in what happens and i would ask the planning department and the port to provide as much as public transparency on this project as we move forward so we can figure out how to move forward with responsible appropriate water front development. certainly some of the issues that have been raised around what is the appropriate height is what my office will be looking into it with that again, i want to thank everyone for coming and with that, madam chair, if we could, i think for now why
don't we keep this item open at the call of the chair in case this issue comes up. >>supervisor london breed: there is a motion to keep this item up. without objection. madam clerk, next item. city clerk: item 2. 140247. hearing follow up board response civil grand jury report deji deja vu. >> we have brian from the department of technology? >> hello, thank you. can i direct your attention to a powerpoint.